Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Sun Feb 29 2004 - 20:58:18 EST
How hard would it be to make shares hierarchial? For example (quoted names are
just descriptive):
"guaranteed" (10 shares) "user" (5 shares)
| |
----------------- -----------------
| | | |
"root" (1) "apache" (2) "bob" (5) "fred" (5)
| | | |
(more groups?) (web servers) etc. etc.
This way one user is prevented from taking unfair CPU time by launcing too many
processes, apache gets enough time no matter what, etc. In this scheme, numbers
of shares would only be comparable if they are children of the same node. Also,
it now becomes safe to let users _increase_ priorities of their processes -- it
doesn't affect anyone else.
Ignoring limts, this should be just an exercise in keeping track of shares and
eliminating the 1/420 limit in precision. It would take some thought to figure
out what nice should do.
Also, could interactivity problems be solved something like this:
prio = ( (old EBS usage ratio) - 0.5 ) * i + 0.5
"i" would be a per-process interactivity factor (normally 1, but higher for
interactive processes) which would only boost them when their CPU usage is low.
This makes interactive processes get their timeslices early (very high
priority at low CPU consumption) but prevents abuse by preventing excessive CPU
consumption. This could even by set by the (untrusted) process itself.
I imagine that these two together would nicely solve most interactivity and
fairness issues -- the former prevents starvation by other users and the latter
prevents latency caused by large numbers of CPU-light tasks.
Is this sane? And does it break the O(1) promotion algorithm?
--Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/